Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Rethinking the role of performance appraisal in total quality management: An argument for the use of peers as raters

  • Articles
  • Published:
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Historically, total quality management theory argues against the use of traditional performance appraisal systems. However, contemporary managers need a means of gathering information for human resource decisions concerning individuals. This study examines the suitability of peer appraisals for the TQM environment, and the potential impact peer appraisals may have on enhancing employee commitment to the TQM process as viewed through a procedural justice framework.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Argyle, M. (1969).Social Interaction. London: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, R.S. (1966).Performance Rating. Chicago: Research Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benson, T.E. (1992). Quality and teamwork get a leg up.Industry Week, April 6, 1992, 66–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernardin, H.J., & Beatty, R.W. (1984).Performance Appraisal: Assessing Human Behavior at Work. Boston, MA.: Kent.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernardin, H.J., & Pence, E.C. (1980). Effects of rater error training: Creating new response sets and decreasing accuracy.Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 60–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borman, W.C. (1974). The rating of individuals in organizations: An alternate approach.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 12, 105–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cederblom, D., & Lounsbury, J.W. (1980). An investigation of user acceptance of peer evaluations.Personnel Psychology, 33, 567–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deming, W.E. (1982) Improvement of quality and productivity through action by management.National Productivity Review, Winter, 12–27.

  • Deming, W.E. (1986).Out of the Crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeNisi, A.S., & Mitchell, J.L. (1978). An analysis of peer ratings as predictors and criterion measures and a proposed new application.Academy of Management Review, 3, 369–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobbins, G.H., Cardy, R.L., & Carson, K.P. (1991). Examining fundamental assumptions: A contrast of person and system approaches to human resource management.Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 9, 1–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, R.I. (1984).Performance Appraisal. Reston, VA: Reston Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollander, E.P., & Webb, W.B. (1955). Leadership, followership and friendship: An analysis of peer nominations.Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 50, 163–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollander, E.P. (1956). Interpersonal exposure time as a determinant of the predictive utility of peer ratings.Psychological Reports, 2, 445–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollander, E.P. (1956). The friendship factor in peer nominations.Personnel Psychology, 9, 435–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollander, E.P. (1957). The reliability of peer nominations under various conditions of administration.Journal of Applied Psychology, 41, 85–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollander, E.P. (1965). Validity of peer nominations in predicting a distant performance criterion.Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 434–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kane, J.S., & Lawler, E.E. (1978). Methods of peer assessment.Psychological Bulletin, 85, 555–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeley, M. (1977). Subjective performance evaluation and person-role conflict under conditions of uncertainty.Academy of Management Journal, 20, 301–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, D.A., & Berman, J.S. (1980). Statistical approaches to the correction of bias.Psychological Bulletin, 88, 288–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klimoski, R.J., & London, M. (1974). Role of the rater in performance appraisal.Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 445–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landy, F.J., Barnes-Farrell, J., & Cleveland, J.N. (1980). Perceived fairness and accuracy of performance evaluation: A follow-up.Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 355–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landy, F.J., Barnes, J.L., & Murphy, K.R. (1978). Correlates of perceived fairness and accuracy of performance evaluation.Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 751–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landy, F.J., Farr, J.L., Saal, F.G., & Freytag, W.R. (1976). BARS for rating the performance of police officers.Journal of Applied Psychology, 6, 752–758.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawler, E.E. (1967). The multitrait-multirater approach to measuring job performance.Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 369–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawler, E.E. (1971).Pay and Organizational Effectiveness: A Psychological View. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawler, E.E., Mohrman, S.A., & Ledford, G.E. (1992).Employee Involvement and Total Quality Management: Practices and Results in Fortune 1000 Companies. San Francisco: CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leavitt, H.J. (1964).Managerial Psychology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S.M. (1984). President’s Letter.Decision Line, 15, 1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leventhal, G.S. (1976). Fairness in social relationships. In Thibaut, J., Spence, J., and Carson, R., (Eds.),Contemporary Topics in Social Psychology. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leventhal, G.S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In Gergen, K., Greenberg, M., and Willis, R., (Eds.),Social Exchange, 27–55. New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, A.Y., Dubno, P., & Akula, W.G. (1971). Face-to-face interaction in the peer nomination process.Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 495–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, A.Y., & Zwany, A. (1976). Peer nominations: A model, literature critique and a paradigm for research.Personnel Psychology, 29, 423–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E.A., & Tyler, T.R. (1988).The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Love, K.G. (1981). Comparison of peer assessment methods: Reliability, validity, friendship bias, and user reaction.Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 451–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mainstone, L.E., & Levi, A.S. (1987). Fundamentals of statistical process control.Organizational Behavior Management and Statistical Process Control, 8, 5–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • McEvoy, G.M., & Buller, P.F. (1987). User acceptance of peer appraisals in an industrial setting.Personnel Psychology, 40, 785–797.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McEvoy, G.M., Buller, P.F., & Roghaar, S.R. (1988). A jury of one’s peers.Personnel Administrator, May, 94–101.

  • Mohrman, A.M., Resnick-West, S.M., & Lawler, E.E. (1989).Designing Performance Appraisal Systems. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, K.R. (1982). Difficulties in the statistical control of halo.Journal of Applied Psychology, 6, 161–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, K.R., & Cleveland, J.N. (1991).Performance Appraisal: An Organizational Perspective. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, C.A., & Zawacki, R.A. (1991). Team appraisals-team approach.Personnel Journal, September, 101–104.

  • Norton, S.M. (1992). Peer assessments of performance and ability: An exploratory meta-analysis of statistical artifacts and contextual moderators.Journal of Business and Psychology, 6(3), 387–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowack, K. (1993). 360-degree feedback: the whole story.Training & Development, January, 69–72.

  • Quimby, C., Parker, L., & Weimerskirch, A. (1991). How exactly do you communicate quality?Quality Progress, 24, 52–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rigg, M. (1992). Reasons for removing employee evaluations from management’s control.Industrial Engineering, August, 17.

  • Scholtes, P.R. (1987).An Elaboration on Deming’s Teachings on Performance Appraisal. Madison, WI: Joiner Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, F.L., & Johnson, R.H. (1973). Effect of race on peer ratings in an industrial situation.Journal of Applied Psychology, 48, 211–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P.C. (1976). Behaviors, results, and organizational effectiveness: The problem of criteria. In Dunnette, M.D. (Ed.),Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2nd Ed., 745–755. Chicago: Rand-McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snell, S.A., & Dean, J.W. (1992). Integrated manufacturing and human resource management: a human capital perspective.Academy of Management Journal, 3, 467–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975).Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1978). A theory of procedure.California Law Review, 66, 541–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Townsend, P.L. (1986).Commit to Quality. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T.R. (1989). The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group value model.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 333–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T.R., & Lind, E.A. (1991). A relational model of authority in groups. In Zanna, M. (Ed.),Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 115–191. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waters, L.K., & Waters, C.S. (1970). Peer nominations as predictors of short term sales performance.Journal of Applied Psychology, 54, 42–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wexley, K.N., & Klimoski, R. (1984). Performance appraisal: An update. In Rowland, K.M., & Ferris, G.R. (Eds.),Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 2, 35–79. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wherry, R. J., & Bartlett, C.J. (1982). The control of bias in ratings: A theory of rating.Personnel Psychology, 35, 521–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wollner, G.E. (1992). The law of producing quality.Quality Progress, 25, 35–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zammuto, R.F., London, M., & Rowland, K. (1982). Organization and rater differences in performance appraisals.Personnel Psychology, 35, 643–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Business Administration, University of Cincinnati, 45221-0165, Cincinnati, Ohio

    James W. Westerman

Authors
  1. James W. Westerman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Westerman, J.W. Rethinking the role of performance appraisal in total quality management: An argument for the use of peers as raters. Employ Respons Rights J 9, 273–284 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02639902

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02639902

Key words

Search

Navigation